Radeon PRO W7700 vs HD Graphics 4200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 4200 with Radeon PRO W7700, including specs and performance data.
PRO W7700 outperforms HD Graphics 4200 by a whopping 4934% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1108 | 61 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 56.20 |
| Power efficiency | 17.22 | 18.25 |
| Architecture | Generation 7.5 (2013) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | Haswell GT2 | Navi 32 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 2 September 2013 (11 years ago) | 13 November 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 160 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 200 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 850 MHz | 2600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 392 million | 28,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 4 Watt | 190 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.00 | 499.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.272 TFLOPS | 31.95 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 2 | 96 |
| TMUs | 20 | 192 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 48 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 576.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.3 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 8
−4900%
| 400−450
+4900%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.50 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−4900%
|
150−160
+4900%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−4900%
|
250−260
+4900%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−4900%
|
150−160
+4900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−4900%
|
150−160
+4900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−4900%
|
100−105
+4900%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−4900%
|
250−260
+4900%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−4900%
|
650−700
+4900%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−4900%
|
350−400
+4900%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−4900%
|
1550−1600
+4900%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−4900%
|
250−260
+4900%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−4900%
|
150−160
+4900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−4900%
|
150−160
+4900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−4900%
|
100−105
+4900%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−4900%
|
250−260
+4900%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−4900%
|
650−700
+4900%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−4900%
|
350−400
+4900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−4900%
|
500−550
+4900%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−4900%
|
1550−1600
+4900%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−4900%
|
250−260
+4900%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−4900%
|
150−160
+4900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−4900%
|
150−160
+4900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−4900%
|
250−260
+4900%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−4900%
|
650−700
+4900%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−4900%
|
350−400
+4900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−4900%
|
500−550
+4900%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−4900%
|
1550−1600
+4900%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−4900%
|
350−400
+4900%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−4900%
|
200−210
+4900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
−4900%
|
200−210
+4900%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−4900%
|
150−160
+4900%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−4900%
|
100−105
+4900%
|
This is how HD Graphics 4200 and PRO W7700 compete in popular games:
- PRO W7700 is 4900% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.99 | 49.84 |
| Recency | 2 September 2013 | 13 November 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 4 Watt | 190 Watt |
HD Graphics 4200 has 4650% lower power consumption.
PRO W7700, on the other hand, has a 4934.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 340% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon PRO W7700 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 4200 in performance tests.
Be aware that HD Graphics 4200 is a notebook card while Radeon PRO W7700 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
